HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/07/2017 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 043, 2017, AMENDINGAgenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 7, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2017, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins by Adding a New Section 17-46 Regulating Use of Public Facilities on Sidewalks, Plazas, Public
Restrooms and Transit Facilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide a set of regulations for shared public spaces in the pedestrian-friendly
downtown area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, Fort Collins has experienced increasing conflicts over how public facilities are
being used or misused, particularly in the downtown area. This has caused numerous challenges and
frustration among downtown visitors, business owners, and residents. Council has held several work sessions
on this subject and past actions taken include partial funding of the Outreach Fort Collins Team and funding
Police Services overtime to increase presence downtown.
While staff believes there have been positive results from the actions Council has taken thus far, challenges
still remain. This is evidenced by the hundreds of emails City Leaders received last summer, which were
subsequently turned into over 25 Service Area Requests (SARs). A summary of the SARs that were created
are included as Attachment 1. While many of the SARs are about behavior that is not addressed by this
Ordinance, staff is providing it as background information. Police officers have, over the years, also observed
instances of large groups of people sitting or lying on sidewalks or public plazas downtown, including
teenagers hanging out, late night partiers and other groups, which makes these spaces inaccessible to others
and takes up space others could use to move around.
In order to address specific concerns expressed by local businesses and visitors related to keeping downtown
pedestrian-friendly, staff is bringing forth an ordinance with the following elements for Council consideration.
The following restrictions apply in the Old Town area from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Prohibits sitting or lying on public sidewalks and plazas.
Prohibit leaving personal property, unattended or attended, on certain City-owned properties including
sidewalks, plazas, parking spaces, and landscaped areas, with certain exceptions.
The proposed boundaries for the enforcement and applicability of these provisions are the same as the
downtown smoke-free zone.
The proposed ordinance would also prohibit the following throughout the City:
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 2
Sitting, kneeling or lying in a public restroom or within ten feet of a restroom entrance or exit, except on a
designated seat, such as a toilet or bench.
Sitting kneeling or lying on any area not designed for sitting in a transit facility, or on public property within
twenty feet of a transit facility.
Staff believes that the proposed elements will make a positive difference in continuing to ensure that the
downtown area, transit facilities, and public restrooms are safe and accessible for pedestrians and users of
public facilities. Individuals lying on sidewalks take up significantly more space than people standing, and
make those spaces unusable by others for standing or walking.
Councilmembers and residents have expressed concerns about the personal property elements of the
proposed Ordinance and how it will negatively impact some individuals. Staff is working with service providers
to research additional options for storage of property, including using City assets such as lockers from the 700
Wood Street renovation, and exploring sites for placing them with the help of Operation Services. Staff will
keep Council informed of these efforts in the coming weeks and months.
Staff believes that this Ordinance is aligned with some of the City’s previously adopted plans and philosophy of
using best practices. The City has intentionally built the downtown sidewalks to accommodate additional
pedestrians and mixed-use development often seen in the area. The City has also adopted other regulations
to improve pedestrian safety downtown, such as the creation of bicycle dismount zones.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers notes the importance of wider thoroughfares in areas similar to
downtown, stating that "Residential uses typically have less need for sidewalk space than similarly scaled
mixed-use blocks with ground floor commercial retail uses, where space for window shopping, outdoor dining,
newspaper racks and other street appurtenances add to the sidewalk width.”
Additionally, the City’s Pedestrian Plan discusses the importance of minimizing and removing barriers that
impede direct pedestrian access. When new improvements and facilities such as benches, planters and other
potential barriers, and sidewalk cafes or patios are considered, staff utilizes the guidance the Pedestrian plan
provides to ensure that the placement of cafes and patios compliment rather than obstruct a continuous
pedestrian network.
Staff has researched other communities’ successes or challenges with similar ordinances, and those findings
are summarized in Attachment 2.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This Ordinance is not expected to have an appreciable impact on the City’s budget.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff presented to the Super Issues Board and Commissions Meeting, the Commission on Disability and the
Human Relations Commission (HRC). The results of the polling at the Super Issues Meeting are included in
Attachment 3.
After its meeting, the HRC chose to send a letter to Council, and generally does not support the Appropriate
Use of Public Spaces ordinance as currently drafted.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach on this proposed Ordinance was robust. In addition to the board and commission outreach,
staff presented twice to the Downtown Business Association and its membership, once to the Downtown
Development Authority, and to the Local Legislative Advisory Committee. Results from clicker surveys
Agenda Item 20
Item # 20 Page 3
performed at these meetings are included in the Attachment 3. Additionally, the DDA has sent Council a letter
in support of this ordinance (Attachment 4).
Additional business outreach was done through the distribution of fliers to businesses in the downtown area,
which provided a broad overview of the issue and online survey.
In conjunction with business outreach, general citizen outreach was also conducted in the form of the online
survey, which garnered over 2100 responses, a coffee talk on Wednesday, February 15th, and a community
meeting which was held on February 22nd. An in-person survey was administered at the community meeting
and those results are also included in Attachment 3.
Attachment 5 includes the results of the online survey questions is included with this document. The full
results of the online survey, including all comments, are available at http://www.fcgov.com/downtownbehavior/
Staff has included general comment themes in Attachment 5.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summaries of Behavior SARs (PDF)
2. Effects of Similar Ordinances in Other Cities (PDF)
3. In-Person Outreach Results (PDF)
4. DDA Letter Regarding Appropriate Use of Public Spaces (PDF)
5. Online Survey Results (PDF)
6. Power Point Presentation (PDF)
Attachment: 1 page sampling of SARs Demonstrating Downtown Behavior
Concerns
SAR # 32378 – Concerns about persistent group of individuals who gather in similar spots each day,
where they leave drug paraphernalia and consume illegal substances. Expressed sadness that customers
and businesses dwindle downtown.
SAR # 33714 – Concern expressed to Councilmember Overbeck at listening session related to transients
verbally accosting pedestrians from the sidewalk near Safeway.
SAR # 33932 – Councilmember Martinez asked for statistics related to transient interactions after
reading multiple TDRs from Police
SAR # 34241 – Resident expressed concerns to Councilmember Overbeck related to dangerous
behaviors near Library Park. Reported having bloody clothing left in their yard, sleeping individuals next
to their property, and used condoms and needles on or near their property.
SAR # 34193 – Councilmember Overbeck passed along a concern from a resident who wished to get rid
of the benches east of Safeway due the constant drinking, fighting, yelling, and harassment he
witnessed from the people sitting there
SAR # 34468 – Citizen wrote to Mayor and Council stating that individuals sitting on or sleeping on
sidewalks verbally engaged with she and her husband during their downtown walk to dinner. Also noted
large amounts of trash gathered and additional individuals passed out on sidewalk near bus stop of
Remington and Olive.
SAR # 34546 – Couple traditionally rented out downtown condo but received bad review related to the
behavior issues downtown. Guests felt unsafe walking anywhere in the neighborhood. Resident asked
for attention to be given to the issues downtown.
SAR # 34690 – Resident of downtown wrote list of concerns including improper storage of personal
property in bushes, large gatherings of individuals seated/lying on sidewalks and benches, and
individuals sleeping on their porch.
SAR # 34522 – Downtown business owner wrote Council concerning the unsafe feel of downtown due to
individuals gathering near her property and not respecting the neighborhood by littering, shouting
profanities, and searching through flowerbeds.
SAR # 36065 – Business and property owner downtown wrote regarding the disheartening conditions
near his office related to persons gathering near their, leaving urine, vomit, and broken glass. Notes that
he has clients no longer wishing to travel to his office.
SAR # 35332 – fifth generation resident expressed concerns about loitering individuals sitting on
landscaped areas in the plaza and that they were ruining the landscape and littering. Also noted the
non-family friendly atmosphere created by the vulgar language of the people.
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment: Effects of Similar Ordinances
Staff was directed to look into the effect of ordinances similar to the proposed appropriate use of public
space ordinance to be considered by City Council. An analysis of national and regional-level reports as
well as focused examinations of several cities found the following major observations:
These ordinances often have an observed variability of enforcement that is reliant on
officer/police discretion.
While reports indicate that these ordinances often result in financial costs or time constraints,
three police departments indicated that they believe the ordinances can serve as a useful tool.
These ordinances have a low citation/arrest rate.
These ordinances do not have a noticeable effect on increasing economic vitality in downtown
areas.
Below, see a more detailed breakdown focusing on several cities, some in-state, some nationwide.
Colorado Springs, CO
Colorado Springs passed a similar ordinance to what is being proposed in Fort Collins in February of
2016, passed as the “Pedestrian Access Act”. This ordinance was met with public resistance.
Enforcement began in April of 2016, with a max fine of $500 and/or up to 90 days in jail for anyone cited
by this ordinance. This ordinance prohibits: Sitting, kneeling, reclining or lying upon the surfaces of
sidewalks, trails or other public rights-of-way during high traffic hours in limited areas of downtown
Colorado Springs and Old Colorado City. Sitting on benches and sitting, lying down, kneeling, and
reclining on grassy areas of parks is still allowed.
Since enforcement has begun, 35 warning citations have been issued and 17 formal citations were
written. 3 of these citations were issued to the same individual who desired to be arrested in protest of
the ordinance. About 150 protestors objected to the ordinance on April 9th, the day enforcement went
into effect. In December, four protesters were convicted by a Colorado Springs jury and issued fines.
Lieutenant Mike Lux of the Colorado Springs Police Department commented that they have not
observed an additional strain on resources and staff time, as those resources have already been directed
to the areas included in the Pedestrian Access Act. According to Lt. Lux, once warning citations were
issued, compliance of the ordinance increased and there has been an observed decrease in the
disruptive behaviors that was the impetus for the ordinance’s creation. The Colorado Springs Police
Department has not issued a citation for this ordinance since December.
Manitou Springs, CO
The Manitou Springs City Council passed a similar ordinance on August 2nd, 2016. Their ordinance
prohibits:
1. Any person from sitting, kneeling, reclining, or lying down in the Downtown area upon the
surface of any public right-of-way.
ATTACHMENT 2
2. Any person from sitting kneeling, reclining, or lying down upon any blanket, clothing, bedding,
chair, stool, or any other object placed upon the surface of the public right-of-way.
3. For any person to place or arrange items for sale or display upon the surface of any public right-
of-way, or upon any bench, chair, or other similar surface intended for public seating that is
located within a public right of way.
According to Joe Ribeiro, Police Chief for the Manitou Springs Police Department, the sit/lie ordinance is
a ticketable offense payable for a $55 fine plus a $45 surcharge on the first offense. Since the passage of
the ordinance, only one citation has been issued to an individual.
Palo Alto, CA
Palo Alto has a much longer history with these types of ordinances, their first of which dates back to
1997, when a sit/lie ordinance was passed by the Palo Alto City Council. In 2007, the restrictions of the
ordinance were expanded to include the entire downtown area. This amendment passed on a 6-3 vote.
Their ordinance prevents:
1. Any person from sitting or lying down in the Downtown area upon the surface of any public
right-of-way.
2. Any person from sitting, kneeling, reclining, or lying down upon any blanket, clothing, bedding,
chair, stool, or any other object placed upon the surface of the public right-of-way.
The City of Palo Alto stopped enforcing this ordinance in 2011 following negative public feedback and
citizen concerns regarding targeted enforcement. Captain Zach Perron of the Palo Alto police
department also commented that lawsuits in other cities around the issue encouraged the City to cease
enforcement. When asked about financial and time costs to the department, Captain Perron highlighted
that the primary effect of enforcement was that it took officers away from other calls that they could be
responding to. However, he did not believe this time spent was not prohibitive of time or financial
resources.
San Francisco, CA
The experience in San Francisco is backed up by a robust report done by their budget and legislative
analyst office in March of 2016. The scale of the findings of the San Francisco report is on a much larger
scale that what is found in Fort Collins. The report looks at “Quality of Life laws” as one single group,
which pairs sit/lie citations with other ordinances intended to help preserve quality of life for everyday
residents and visitors. These include: public urination/defecation, drinking in public, camping in a park,
dog license and leash laws, using a vehicle for habitation, and others.
The Budget and Legislative Analyst Office found that it cost the San Francisco police department and
support services “$20.6 Million in 2015 for sanctioning individuals for violating quality of life laws.” The
primary cost drivers of these costs have been an increase in the utilization of a 311 system where
citizens can report quality of life violations and the legal requirements for officers to respond to each of
these calls, increasing workload and department costs. The report showed little effect was made on
reducing the behaviors that these quality of life laws helped to solve.
Attachment: In-Person Outreach Results
In this attachment, the results from the in-person surveys done at 6 outreach events are presented. The six events are shown in five groups:
1. Aztlan – these are the results from the community meeting at the Northside Aztlan Center on February 23rd
2. DBA – these are the combined results from two Downtown Business Association outreach events held on February 8th and February 23rd.
3. DDA – these are the results from the meeting held with the Downtown Development Authority Board on February 9th .
4. Super Issue – these are the results from the presentation given at the Super Issue Joint Boards and Commissions meeting
5. LLAC – these are the results from the meeting held with Chamber of Commerce’s Local Legislative Affairs Committee on February 17th.
The results are presented by question, with each bar color representing a different group/event. The number of people in attendance is noted in parenthesis in
the legend.
ATTACHMENT 3
0%
59%
14%
27%
15%
54%
6%
15%
6%
6%
31%
56%
10%
5%
42%
42%
12%
43%
9%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Live Downtown
None of the above
Own a business Downtown
Work Downtown
Do you:
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue (67)
LLAC (22)
14%
5%
0%
41%
36%
4%
3%
16%
42%
33%
0%
0%
0%
13%
88%
0%
0%
0%
8%
88%
4%
0%
3%
49%
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Occasionally
Rarely
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
How often do you frequent downtown?
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue (67)
LLAC (22)
9%
50%
77%
68%
86%
25%
36%
31%
51%
54%
6%
69%
38%
50%
63%
7%
75%
66%
80%
75%
57%
18%
9%
43%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the above
Aggressive or intimidating behavior
Groups or individuals lying on benches
Intoxicated or impaired behavior
Groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks
Is your experience downtown ever diminished by? (select all that apply)
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue (67)
LLAC (22)
14%
0%
32%
50%
82%
13%
21%
28%
21%
61%
31%
13%
31%
25%
63%
22%
8%
24%
44%
71%
7%
78%
8%
8%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks for more than 1 hour
No, do not regulate
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks for more than 1 hour
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks
Should the City regulate sidewalk behavior in any of the following ways?
(Maximum two responses)
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue (67)
LLAC (22)
18%
18%
0%
82%
82%
28%
24%
16%
45%
45%
25%
13%
6%
44%
56%
12%
12%
3%
75%
73%
14%
19%
69%
9%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
On sidewalks for more than 4 hours
On benches for more than 4 hours
No, do not regulate
On benches for more than 1 hour
On sidewalks for more than 1 hour
Should the City prohibit placement of unattended personal goods?
(Maximum two responses)
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue (67)
LLAC (22)
0%
91%
86%
100%
15%
58%
78%
79%
0%
56%
56%
75%
5%
80%
85%
93%
66%
24%
30%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No, do not regulate
Sitting
Placement of Personal Items
Lying
Should the City prohibit any of the following on/in planters? (Select all that
apply)
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue (67)
LLAC (22)
At the February 23rd public meeting at the Northside Aztlan Center, written comments were also collected. The transcribed written comments can be seen
below. Comments with a (1+), (2+), (3+), etc. indicate that the comment was marked by 2, 3, etc. individuals:
The only intoxicated behavior that affects me is when they don’t sit/lie. It’s young drunk people, not homeless. As a young woman, Downtown behavior
does not ever threaten me. (3+)
As a member of the Chamber and the DBA, I would like to see more funding for mental Health services rather than legislation of this type. I encourage
council to vote against the stand/sit/lie ban and the ordinance against unattached belongings.
I think that this will end up pushing business out of Downtown and into Foothills Mall at Front Range Village. I also think that any ordinance should come
with a price tag for the taxpayers before it can be worked on.
Fort Collins is better than this! Please don’t further criminalize extreme poverty and homelessness.
The survey is biased and set up so people who are for this ordinance get more of a chance to choose options that are pro. People who are against only
have one option.
I understand this is about “behaviors not people” but what kind of people will actually engage in behaviors like sitting on the sidewalk or carrying large
amounts of possessions? People who are homeless. People who are poor or sick. Pay attention to the people wo will definitely be affected.
The legal measures taken after someone has been ticketed for “carrying too many belongings or sitting on the ground for too long are arbitrary. The
police should be held accountable for how they navigate certain situations and what legal action this equates to. This ban is not an acceptable proposal
and should not be passed. It is discriminatory Law enforcement. There is too large an opportunity for unjust situations to arise. Why is all of our trust
and value put in the opinions of police and business owners? What about those who are living on the streets? They have no support or space to
nurture their mental/physical health ALREADY. How will this help them to be more stable? It won’t.
I am a business owner/building owner, former DDA & DBA Board member. I love Old Town and I want it to thrive. This is NOT the time or the correct
way to improve our downtown. We lefties are activated like never before because of TRUMP. Downtown does not need this uncompassionate aura.
I’m concerned about the impact this ordinance will have on the already-present feelings of disconnection and marginalization felt by individuals I work
with. Feeling ignored or ostracized by your community is not conducive to good mental health. (1+)
Make part of a bigger discussion on increased services. Consider Tiny Home Communities for Homeless!
Discrimination, marginalization including RACISM and DISRESPECT TO THE HARD OF HEARING AS SEEN tonight, are already huge human rights issues in
Fort Collins. This ordinance will only deepen that.
If this happens -> any escalation or enforcement should be done with a social worker or advocate present at the time. We’d need more social worker
staff.
About 1/3 of homeless people have a mental illness. Larimer County voted down a detox and treatment center on Nov. 11, 2016. Do we now want to
further kick these people to the curb with a no-sit-lie ban?
I am a downtown business owner (of 14 years) and I oppose this ban for several reasons. There were far more problems with vomit and other bodily
fluids in our doorways 10 years ago prior to beautification of the alleys and attention to planters etc. We have had our Outreach Team on board for 1
summer and they had a positive impact. With the additional funding available for that team, it seems that the Outreach program deserves a longer time
to address these issues! There are homeless people and disruptive people in most cities and I think it is a bit anecdotal that people do not want to come
to Old Town due to the ‘disruptive’ behaviors of the homeless. The only time I am at all fearful or intimidated in Old Town is when the bars close. We
must treat human beings with the greater needs than our own with dignity and apply logical solutions rather than knee-jerk reactions to “erase” their
presence. At my business we have several homeless regulars who come in for a cup of coffee or to use our restroom. If someone becomes at all loud or
disruptive we put an arm around them and listen as we walk them out the door OR call the Outreach Team. The city pays a lot to clean up after the bars
close yet will not put out the funds for in-depth studies of humane solutions which other cities (not Denver!) have found success with, e.g., housing first
and then address issues of individuals.
Plant perennials in Downtown planters, instead of annuals. Save taxpayers money. They are more resilient.
This feels like a broken tail light. I am worried about potential abuse.
Research has found that 60% of people cannot meet a $500 surprise bill, i.e. car problem, health, etc.
Focus on reducing cost of living like expand transit so people can get along with just 1 car/family/no car.
Public spaces are meant for enjoyment and use by the public. Criminalizing the use of public space is in direct contradiction to the idea of public space
and does not reflect the values of Fort Collins residents.
Discriminatory put rights of business owners above the homeless
I think it is great you do stakeholder sessions, but since this ordinance will disproportionately impact homeless individuals I think you should make them
at times they can attend. Shelter operations interfere with session times. They are in shelters now. Give them a voice.
I’m opposed to this regulation, if it does pass, the proposal penalties are totally out of line, “up to 6 months in jail or $2,650 in fines.” There needs to be
much more clarification regarding how these fines would be implemented. There needs to be other interventions tried first, such as warnings,
counseling with one of the Outreach workers before individuals are given a ticket. Have you looked at other cities that have tried something similar –
was it successful, did it have the desired outcome?
Before considering criminalizing homelessness, please invest more time, resources, and energy in Fort Collins Outreach. (+ 1)
For many people the “passive ask” of a homeless person sitting on the sidewalk, or the edge of a planter, is much less aggressive or creates less of an
imposition than someone standing and asking directly.
The DOJ filed a (paper legal statement) regarding alcoholism and public drunkenness stating that there are circumstances where the behavior is
indistinguishable from socioeconomic circumstances. Analogous to this proposal.
The City of San Francisco has a report on the efficacy of their own sit-lie ordinances and found it was not an effective deterrent of behavior.
In particular, fining people who could not afford the fines is meaningless in practical application, grew to unreasonable $ value. In one case, unpaid fines
and penalties accrued to $20K.
This will, most likely, in my opinion, simply shift behavior to other places where it is less visible, but still problematic.
Public drunkenness is much more disruptive and intimidating to me personally.
As long as we put economics above, we remain below.
Consider seeking out Occupational Therapists, artists, teachers, to offer constructive activities and skill acquisition.
Where are the “carrots” in this process?
This is an absurd law and it does not belong in the criminal code. Make it non-jailable at least! Or just ditch it.
All of the pictures used to illustrate the “problem” can be dealt with by existing laws, enforcement & support – 2 men lying down look like they need
help, City already picks ups stuff. Give outreach and enhanced police time to work, enforce existing laws consistently and don’t add more fines and
burdens to vulnerable people.
This ordinance will not address the main issue of concern as expressed by Council - the vomiting and defecation in entryways and alleys. Please ask staff
to present a resolution to help identify these issues.
Before considering ticketing individuals with more stuff than they can carry with two hands, the City* must provide lockers/safe places for individuals to
store their belongings. This must be accessible 24/7.
o *Not a church
One of values we teach our children and grandchildren is to help and support others.
o Example – Giving to charity, Salvation Army, Rescue Mission.
o Can food drives in the Church & School
I have asked who will receive this help by my children and grandchildren . Seeing people down on their luck in Old Town makes this act of kindness real
Making a problem less visible does not lead to a solution. (+1)
I do not believe this will be enforced equally. As a middle class white woman, I can much guarantee I would never be contacted by police for this. (+1)
City Leaders say this proposal is not about homeless people, but about behaviors, but the proposal makes regular human behaviors for those who have
no residence a crime. Sitting or resting or having more possessions than can fit in a back pack are specifically things that people without housing need to
do. We need lockers for people’s things, more housing, more resources for people.
Our City is better than this. (+1)
Perennial plants would save us thousands!
It may target behavior, but by nature it will disproportionally impact homeless people. They need our help, not more stress.
Criminalizing behavior which adversely affects a certain class is simply immoral.
Already unlawful:
o Public urination
o Drunk in public
o Disorderly conduct
o Destruction of property
o Smoking and public drug use
THESE ARE DISRUPTIVE. SITTING, LYING, UNATTENDED PROPERTY IS NOT.
Why March 7th – Can’t we delay?
When is property abandoned vs unattended?
Why was “attended item larger than what the average adult can carry” left out of this presentation? If I am a visiting downtown shopper with my two
suitcases, will you ticket me? Say I do it twice?
Considering the disproportionate ticketing of those without homes under the no-smoking ordinance, how can we expect an equal application of this
regulation to all individuals based on police discretion?
These ordinances are clearly aimed at addressing behaviors associated with being homeless. I do not believe the will be enforced equally and will not
address the root of the problem.
It is not okay to make homelessness invisible. Downtown should be open for everyone.
Trial period of one year should be placed on regulations: Data then collected to determine cost, effectiveness, etc.
Where can a person rest, sit, hang out for hours and be legal? Safe? (+1 +1)
I would recommend using jail bed $ to beef up the lockers and “social worker” program.
Does “attended property” (when referring to more than you can carry with two hands) also include property you have while walking, biking, mobilizing?
It doesn’t make sense to vote on this when there’s obviously so much work/comments/questions to be done/had. If FC Outreach has worked so well,
why don’t we keep working with what has given PROVEN, SUCCESSFUL RESULTS. There were great suggestions and comments today that won’t even be
considered into the draft today, referring to a lady’s concern about behavior – 2 a.m. – 9 a.m.
If some of the DBA has issue with property on streets being disruptive, MAKE THEM take their signs, their drunk, smoking customers, OFF THE SIDEWALK
TOO.
The most destructive behavior I have experienced in Old Town is associated with drunk-bar-hoppers, not people sitting, lying or carrying a lot of stuff.
(+1)
Did Council include lying on benches?
o Do we need more treatment centers?
o ACLU? +1 see DOT filing re: San Francisco sit-lie
o Will this displace the problem?
o Cost?
o Attended personal belongings? More than can carry?
o Penalties?
o Littering vs. unattended property?
o Bar crowd, noise, trash?
o What happens to unattended property?
o Providing lockers and more to help?
o Give Outreach Fort Collins more time
o What stakeholders?
Who is this ban for and what are their exact concerns?
Give Outreach Fort Collins a chance. One summer is not enough! (+2)
Recognize that tickets – courts can have long-time consequences
I, too, am worried about potential abuse and discrimination.
Plant food.
In the public comment survey, we were not given the opportunity to express our opinions about the part of the ordinance criminalizing having more
stuff than you can carry with hands. This is very upsetting because this is one part of the ordinance that bothers me the most.
Smoking Ban has shown: This law WILL be enforced discriminatorily.
Thank you for the outreach team.
o It is deeply problematic even to threaten an ordinance that would prohibit sitting for longer than one hour. A lot of energy went into that
particular prohibition, and it generated quite a lot of fear. More communication with neighbors who are homeless would have helped avoid this.
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 1 of 7
Attachment: Online Survey Results – approximately 2,270 Responses
3%
5%
12%
18%
87%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the above
Own a business downtown
Live downtown
Work downtown
Visit/frequent downton
Do You
46%
27%
14%
10%
2%
How often do you frequent downtown?
Weekly
Daily
Occassionally (1 or 2 times a
month)
Monthly
Rarely (1 or 2 times a year)
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 2 of 7
46%
44%
10%
How often do you experience aggressive or initimidating
behavior?
Never
Sometimes (not a common
occurrence)
Frequently (almost every time I'm
downtown)
39% 53%
8%
How often do you experience groups or individuals
sitting or lying on sidewalks?
Frequently (almost every time I'm
downtown)
Sometimes (not a common
occurrence)
Never
Page 3 of 7
When asked about behaviors that diminish the downtown experience comments tended to address the
following:
Smoking, drug use, and late night intoxication
Panhandling and sign petitioners
Coal rolling, cruising, loud vehicles, and aggressive driving
Multiple aggressive behaviors including yelling, cursing, following people, fighting, and cat‐calling
Skateboarders and bikers not dismounting
Numerous comments referred to a general shift towards feeling less safe downtown and avoiding with visitors
and small children. This was also reflected in comments specifically addressing the downtown
62%
38%
Are there other behaviors that have diminished your
downtown experience?
No
Yes
59%
26%
15%
How often do you experience intoxicated or impaired
behavior?
Sometimes (not a common
occurrence)
Frequently (almost every time I'm
downtown)
Never
Page 4 of 7
library. Comments reflected a sense that the over‐arching mission of the library is being lost and employees
are stretched to work outside of their area of expertise.
There was also strong support for greater enforcement of smoking
Comments addressing the proposed regulations reflected desires to make downtown feel safe for everyone
and to not “criminalize homelessness.”
10%
20%
25%
25%
39%
45%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks for more than an hour
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks for more than an hour
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks
No, do not regulate
Should the City regulate sidewalk behavior in any of the
following ways?
Page 5 of 7
6%
20%
22%
32%
32%
46%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
On benches for more than four hours
On sidewalks for more than four hours
On benches for more than an hour
On sidewalks for more than an hour
No, do not regulate
Should the City prohibit placement of personal goods:
7%
32%
41%
43%
53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Sitting
No, do not regulate
Placement of personal items
Lying
Should the City prohibit any of the following on planters:
Page 6 of 7
Themes from general comments left after the survey:
Key themes from survey comments pages 66‐99:
Individuals are avoiding/leaving downtown because of the problems. Safety and family friendliness
were commonly cited as reasons.
Concerns about criminalizing homelessness and the legality of the ordinance
Public intoxication and enforcement of the smoking ordinance should be focused on more.
Resources may be more effective elsewhere
Mixed comments about this being a severe problem which is ruining downtown to there being no
problem at all
Provide lockers or additional benches
Concerns that something needs to be done as the problem only continues to get worse
Key themes from survey comments pages 100‐126:
City needs to help the homeless, not move them out.
Banning people from sitting and lying is criminalizing homelessness.
Can’t enjoy Downtown anymore because of smoking, drunk college students and people blocking
sidewalks.
Survey was biased.
Panhandlers are a problem.
This is a really complex issue.
Key themes from survey comments pages 126‐160:
The City should be focusing on other efforts and funding different programs such as housing, day
shelters, mental health support, and outreach to combat the problem of aggressive/Disruptive
behaviors downtown.
This ordinance would be extremely difficult to enforce and would result in targeting of the homeless
population.
Residents are concerned about safety and being regularly exposed to aggressive and disruptive
behavior and believe that action should be taken by the city.
Page 7 of 7
Negative encounters with people downtown come more from drunk bar‐goers than the
homeless/transient populations.
The city should not regulate these shared spaces, as they are “shared” and should be open.
Appropriate Use of Shared Public Space 1
ATTACHMENT 6
Background
2015 Survey
Top 3 Disruptive Behaviors
Downtown:
• Panhandling
• Groups or individuals sitting or
lying on sidewalks
• Aggressive, intimidating
behavior
Action taken
• City partnered to create
Outreach Fort Collins
• Committed additional police
resources to the Downtown
area
2
Current Efforts
§ Positive impacts have been
made
§ Continue to hear complaints,
particularly from businesses
and patrons in the Downtown
core.
§ Hundreds of emails, 25+
SARs last summer
3
Challenges Remain
4
Stakeholder Input
• Stakeholder group met in October
• Identified the following gaps:
• Jail Space
• Appropriate Use of Public Spaces Ordinance
• Give Real Change program (panhandling alternative)
5
Proposed Regulations
Specific options would prohibit:
• Sitting or lying on public sidewalks or plazas (9:00 am - 2:00 am)
• Leaving personal property unattended.
• Sitting or lying on things not designed for sitting (planters, flower
beds, etc.)
• Sitting on a bench for longer than one hour.
• Reclining or lying on a chair, bench, or other objects designed for
sitting.
6
Proposed Regulations
.
• Regulations focus on
maintaining a pedestrian
friendly environment.
• Focuses on smoke-free zone
boundary as implementation
area.
• Includes Old Town Square and
Oak Street Plaza.
7
This Ordinance Is Not…
8
Process and Outreach
The City sought feedback in the following ways:
• City Board and Commission Meetings
• Online survey
• Coffee talk
• Community meeting
• Business outreach
9
Extensive Surveying
In-Person Surveys
• Aztlan Center Community Meeting
• Downtown Business Association (2 meetings)
• Downtown Development Authority
• Local Legislative Advisory Committee
Online Survey
• Over 2200 responses
10
11
14%
0%
32%
50%
82%
13%
21%
28%
21%
61%
31%
13%
31%
25%
63%
22%
8%
24%
44%
71%
7%
78%
8%
8%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks for more than 1 hour
No, do not regulate
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks for more than 1 hour
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue (67)
LLAC (22)
In-Person Survey Results: Sidewalks
Online Survey – Sidewalks
12
10%
20%
25%
25%
39%
45%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks for more than an hour
Prohibiting sitting on sidewalks for more than an hour
Prohibiting lying on sidewalks
No, do not regulate
Should the City regulate sidewalk behavior in any of the
following ways?
In-Person Survey – Unattended Property
13
18%
18%
0%
82%
82%
28%
24%
16%
45%
45%
25%
13%
6%
44%
56%
12%
12%
3%
75%
73%
14%
19%
69%
9%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
On sidewalks for more than 4 hours
On benches for more than 4 hours
No, do not regulate
On benches for more than 1 hour
On sidewalks for more than 1 hour
Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue
(67)
LLAC (22)
Online Survey – Unattended Property
14
6%
20%
22%
32%
32%
46%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
On benches for more than four hours
On sidewalks for more than four hours
On benches for more than an hour
On sidewalks for more than an hour
No, do not regulate
Should the City prohibit placement of personal goods:
In-Person Survey - Planters
15
0%
91%
86%
100%
15%
58%
78%
79%
0%
56%
56%
75%
5%
80%
85%
93%
66%
24%
30%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No, do not regulate
Sitting
Placement of Personal Items
Lying Aztlan (74)
DBA (59)
DDA (16)
Super Issue
(67)
LLAC (22)
Online Survey - Planters
16
7%
32%
41%
43%
53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Sitting
No, do not regulate
Placement of personal items
Lying
Should the City prohibit any of the following on planters:
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends an Appropriate Use of Public Spaces Ordinance that:
• Prohibits Sitting or lying on public sidewalks or plazas (9:00 am
- 2:00 am)
• Prohibits leaving personal property unattended.
• Prohibits sitting or lying on planters, flower beds, and similar
objects
17
Thank you.
18
ORDINANCE NO. 043, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 17-46
REGULATING USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ON SIDEWALKS,
PLAZAS, PUBLIC RESTROOMS AND TRANSIT FACILITIES
WHEREAS, pursuant to its constitutional home rule powers and Sections 31-15-401 and
31-15-702, Colorado Revised Statutes, the City has the power to regulate the conduct upon and
the use of public sidewalk areas and plazas, near public restrooms, and at transit facilities; and
WHEREAS, in recent years there has been an increase in complaints from businesses and
individuals about persons sitting, lying, and depositing personal items on the sidewalks and
plazas in the downtown area, and a lack of clear egress and ingress near public restrooms and at
transit facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City has a compelling interest in encouraging
and preserving a vital, pedestrian-friendly downtown center and safe, convenient access to public
transit facilities and restrooms; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the downtown area contains dense and highly
trafficked pedestrian areas and significant vehicular traffic and parking; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is beneficial to encourage a pedestrian-friendly
and shared public downtown area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the environment and economic vitality of the
City benefits when citizens and visitors use public transportation; and
WHEREAS, when persons misuse public transit facilities or restrooms, it makes those
facilities unavailable to others who want or need to use them; and
WHEREAS, citizens are often reticent to use public restrooms and transportation when
people are sitting or lying at or near the entrance to such facilities, or have stored their
belongings there; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is necessary to regulate the appropriate use of
public facilities, including sidewalk areas, plazas, public restrooms, and transit facilities under
the circumstances set forth herein, for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the
City’s citizens and visitors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the City has a compelling interest in:
(a) encouraging and preserving vital transit facilities and a pedestrian-friendly
downtown business area;
(b) promoting business and tourism in the downtown business area;
(c) preserving the safety of pedestrians, particularly the elderly, disabled, vision-
impaired and children;
(d) encouraging the use of public sidewalk areas and plazas for travel in and about the
downtown business area as a realistic alternative to the use of motor vehicles;
(e) keeping a clear egress and ingress to public restrooms for citizens and visitors;
and
(f) promoting the safe and efficient use of public transportation.
Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds that the transit facilities and public
restrooms throughout the City, and public sidewalk areas and plazas within the downtown
business area, have high pedestrian use, and individuals sitting or lying down on those areas or
on objects located therein that are not intended for sitting or lying, or using those areas to store
personal property:
(a) are disruptive to residents, visitors, businesses, transit users, and customers;
(b) discourage, block, or inhibit the free passage of pedestrians and the intended use
of public restroom and transit facilities;
(c) contribute to the loss of access to and enjoyment of businesses and public places;
(d) impede the ability of visitors and citizens to share the public space in the
downtown area;
(e) cause residents and visitors to tend to avoid such areas, thereby threatening the
vitality of the businesses within and surrounding the area, and the City’s overall
economic health; and
(f) damage structures and equipment and impair use for their intended purposes.
Section 4. That Article III of Chapter 17 of the City Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Section 17-46 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 17-46. Appropriate use of public facilities.
(a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this Subsection:
Authority means the Downtown Development Authority.
Child means any person under the age of 13.
City function means any task or job or the preparation for any task or job
related to the construction, operation, or maintenance of public facilities.
Disability shall mean a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment or
being regarded as having such an impairment.
Downtown area shall mean within the area bounded by: the center of
Mason Street from the center of Maple Street to the center of Olive Street;
the center of Olive Street from the center Mason Street to the center of
Remington Street; the center of Remington Street from the center of Olive
Street to the center of Oak Street; the center of Oak Street from the center
of Remington Street to the center of Mathews Street; the center of
Mathews Street from the center of Oak Street to the center of Mountain
Avenue; the center of Mountain Avenue from the center of Mathews
Street to the center of Jefferson Street; the center of Jefferson Street from
the center of Mountain Avenue to the center of Maple Street; the center of
Maple Street from the center of Jefferson Street to the center of Mason
Street. For purposes of this definition, the center of any given street shall
be deemed to be the midpoint between the outer boundaries of such street.
For streets running north to south or approximately north to south, the
center runs north to south or approximately north to south, respectively;
for streets running east to west, the center runs east to west or
approximately east to west, respectively; the center of Jefferson Street
runs approximately southeast to northwest. A map showing the
approximate area of the downtown area, called the Downtown Smoke-
Free Zone, dated February 27, 2015, is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.
Major life activities shall mean functions such as, but not limited to, caring
for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, eating,
sleeping, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, learning, reading,
concentrating, thinking, communicating, breathing, and working.
Oak Street Plaza shall mean the property described in Ordinance No. 134,
2006.
Old Town Plaza shall have the meaning ascribed to it in § 15-381 of this
Code.
Pedestrian Walkway shall mean a public alley or other public passageway
that is not a sidewalk but has been improved for pedestrian access and use.
Personal property shall mean moveable, tangible property of any kind that
can be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other way
perceptible to the senses, not including land, interests in land, or public
fixtures.
Physical or mental impairment shall mean, but is not limited to, any
physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical
loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological;
musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech
organs; cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive; genitourinary; hemic and
lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or any mental or psychological disorder,
such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental
illness, and specific learning disabilities. The phrase physical or mental
impairment includes but is not limited to such conditions as orthopedic,
visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular
dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, specific learning
disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), and
tuberculosis, among other conditions.
Public plazas shall mean Old Town Plaza and Oak Street Plaza.
Public restroom shall mean any city-owned or operated restroom.
Public sidewalk shall mean any portion of a street between the curbline
and the adjacent property line, excluding parkways, which is intended for
use by pedestrians.
Transit facility shall mean any bus stop, bus shelter, bus bench, transit
center, or pedestrian overpass or underpass.
(b) In the downtown area, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., or at
any time when ordered to move by any City or Authority employee or contractor
to accomplish any City or Authority function, it shall be unlawful for any person
to sit, kneel, or lie down upon a public sidewalk or pedestrian walkway, in any
public plaza, or upon any other object placed upon a public sidewalk, pedestrian
walkway or public plaza, including, but not limited to a personal cloth or pad, or a
chair or other seat not provided by a public agency or pursuant to a City-issued or
Authority-issued permit or license.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to sit, kneel, or lie down upon any area
not designed for sitting in a transit facility, or upon public property within twenty
(20) feet of a transit facility.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sit, kneel or lie down upon any area
in a public restroom, or within ten (10) feet of the entrance or exit to a public
restroom, except for areas designed for sitting, such as a toilet or a bench.
(e) Subsections (b) through (d) shall not apply to a person who:
(1) sits, kneels, or lies down because of, and to the extent reasonably
necessary, due to, a medical emergency;
(2) as a result of a disability, utilizes a wheelchair or similar device to
move about the sidewalks, public plazas, transit facilities, or public
restrooms;
(3) sits on a chair or bench that is supplied by the City or Authority or
authorized pursuant to a City-issued or Authority-issued license, permit, or
other authorization;
(4) is a child being transported in a stroller or similar device;
(5) is a child playing or participating in activities which may include
sitting, in designated play areas;
(6) operates a commercial establishment or vending cart, or carries
out other activities on public sidewalks, pedestrian walkways or plazas
pursuant to a City-issued or Authority issued license, permit, or other
authorization;
(7) participates in or views a parade, festival, performance, rally,
demonstration, fair, or similar event authorized pursuant to a City-issued
or Authority-issued license, permit, or other authorization; or
(8) is an employee of the City or Authority, or any party contracting
with the City or Authority, who is performing work or maintenance, or
conducting management or enforcement functions, on the public
sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, plazas, public restrooms or transit
facilities, that is within the scope and authority of his/her employment.
(f) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or permit the depositing of
unattended personal property in the following locations:
(1) upon a public sidewalk or pedestrian walkway, in any public
plaza, or upon or in any other public fixture or furniture in the downtown
area, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., or at any time when
ordered to move by any City or Authority employee or contractor to
accomplish any City or Authority function;
(2) in a public restroom or within ten (10) feet of the entrance or exit
to a public restroom; or
(3) in a transit facility or on public property within twenty (20) feet of
a transit facility.
(g) The prohibition in Subsection (f) shall not apply if:
(1) the deposited property is a wheeled device designed for the
purpose of transporting a person of any age, which is temporarily stored in
a location designed and designated for such storage;
(2) the fixture is designed, intended and made available to the public
for such use, such as a trash can or recycling bin;
(3) the person is acting under the authority of a City-issued or
Authority-issued license or permit; or
(4) such personal property is being moved into or out of a business or
residence with consent of the occupant.
(h) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or permit the depositing of
attended personal property in the following locations:
(1) upon a public sidewalk or pedestrian walkway, in any public
plaza, or upon or in any other public fixture or furniture in the downtown
area, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., or at any time when
ordered to move by any City or Authority employee or contractor to
accomplish any City or Authority function;
(2) in a public restroom or within ten (10) feet of the entrance or exit
to a public restroom; or
(3) in a transit facility or on public property within twenty (20) feet of
a transit facility.
(i) The prohibition in Subsection (h) shall not apply if:
(1) the personal property is attended by the owner or keeper of the
property; and
(2) the amount of property deposited is less than or equal to an amount
that may reasonably be expected to be hand-carried by a single adult.
(j) Subsections (f) through (i) shall not apply to a person who:
(1) operates a commercial establishment or vending cart, or carries
out other activities on public sidewalks, pedestrian walkways or plazas
pursuant to a City-issued or Authority issued license, permit, or other
authorization;
(2) participates in or views a parade, festival, performance, rally,
demonstration, fair, or similar event authorized pursuant to a City-issued
or Authority-issued license, permit, or other authorization; or
(3) is an employee of the City or Authority, or any party contracting
with the City or Authority, who is performing work or maintenance, or
conducting management or enforcement functions, on the public
sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, plazas, public restrooms or transit
facilities, that is within the scope and authority of his/her employment.
(k) This Section does not permit any conduct that is prohibited by ordinances
of Fort Collins regarding interference with pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
(l) A culpable mental state is not required, and need not be proven, for an
offense under this Section.
(m) Nothing in this Section is intended to modify any restriction regarding
unattended displays in Chapter 23 of the City Code.
Section 5. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to report
back to the City Council in one year from the effective date of this Ordinance on the
impacts of enacting these new Code provisions.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
March, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of March, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of March, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk